Warnings from Research Avoiding Evaluation Errors: Fairness in Appraising Employee Performance

What are some of the most commontypes of rating errors and how might they be avoided? Research and prac-tice suggest that rating errors are uni-versal, but they can be minimized if administrators are aware of them. e all try to be scrupulously fair in evaluating employees. We know that work is so important to people that ~t ~ ~ many define themselves by their jobs (Hall, 1986; Nicholson, 1987), and we make every effort to be as accurate as possible in appraising the people who work with and for us. We cannot afford to do less. Serious Responsibility ’ Employee evaluation is a serious responsibility. Performance appraisals identify the people who should be recognized, promoted, or given additional responsibilities and opportunities, as well as at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from 41 those who should be given additional training, counseling, or a chance to work somewhere else. To accomplish this, ratings must be accurate. Accurate or not, however, perfor-mance appraisals still affect employ-ees ’ self-perceptions, self-esteem, employment status, compensation, and promotion opportunities (Ferris, Russ, and Fandt, 1989). Administra-tors who evaluate teachers, secre-taries, clerks, custodians, and others in the school make decisions that have a significant impact on the lives of those people. Accurate or not,... performance appraisals still affect employees’ self-perceptions, self-esteem, employment sta-tus, compensation, and promotion opportunities. Despite our best efforts, however, we all make rating errors. Some ele-ment of error is probably unavoid-able; evaluation is a human enterprise and none of us is perfect. But research suggests that many more performance evaluation errors are made than should be, even with the best evaluation instruments. Rating errors can be minimized if administrators are made aware of them. Real minimization requires an administrator staff development pro-gram incorporating simulations, exer-cises, practice, and coaching (Wexley, Sanders, and Yukl, 1973), but aware-ness is the first step. The likelihood of errors can be reduced if administra-tors are aware of common rater errors and some simple techniques for deal-ing with them